February 12 2013

Feedback from students’ tests as a tool in teaching

A case study1

Radoslav M. Dimitrić
arXiv:1305.5173v1 [math.HO] 21 May 2013

dimitricr@member.ams.org

Introduction. A close look at students’ written work on examinations offers

a wealth of information about their performance, their knowledge of the subject,
their strengths, weaknesses and misconceptions, and their overall level of mathe-
matical skills and abilities. This information can be used to better ascertain how
mathematical concepts taught in class were understood by students and to suggest
various approaches that could be used to improve teaching. The process of ana-
lyzing students’ work, although time consuming, can be rewarding and can have
positive results for both students and instructors.
My aim is fourfold: (a) To give a rationale for analysis of students’ work, es-
pecially tests (b) to give possible explanations of students’ performance; (c) to
revisit aspects of teaching some mathematical constructs, such as function and, (d)
to provide possible ways of improving the teaching of concepts considered in this
paper.
− − − − − − − − −−

Mathematics/Education Subject Classification (MSC 2010): Primary: 97C70,

97D40, 97D70, 97I40; Secondary: 97D66, 97D80, 97I40 / (MESC 1999) Primary:
B40, B50, C70, D40, D70, Secondary: D60, D80, E40, I20, I40, I60
Keywords: Definition and conception of function, Calculus 3, three-dimensional
calculus, three-dimensional graphs, several variables, analytic geometry, double in-
tegral, triple integral, line integral, volume, computational errors, students’ errors,
lesson plans, teaching strategies, assessment of learning, assessment of teaching,
diagnostic testing.

1 The first version of this paper was presented at the joint American Mathematical Soci-
ety/Mathematical Association of America Meeting, Boston, January 4, 2012. The paper was
presented at the 12th International Congress on Mathematics Education (ICME12), Seoul, South
Korea, July 8-15, 2012.
1
2

In this paper, I present the core of my analysis of one final examination in a

Calculus III course for science majors (by way of answers about their majors/career
goals, 42.8% of the students were chemistry or biochemistry majors, 14.3% math
and math ed majors, 10.7% of computer science majors, 10.7% mechanical or civil
engineering, 7.1% medicine or biomedicine; remaining students were pharmacy,
history teaching, biostatistics, undecided and they amounted amounted to 14.4%.
Judging by a diagnostic test given at the first class meeting and made specifically for
this course (the diagnostic is provided in the appendix) these science students were
not mathematically advanced, and showed considerable weakness on many points.
Diagnostic test score of about 90% would indicate that the student is prepared
for the course and the score below 60% requires instructor’s serious discussion as
to what to do about the required material. In this light the mean score of 35%
(median 38% and standard deviation As is often the case, there were difficulties
related to the concept of functions, their properties and their operations. There is
a considerable corpus of literature that addresses the issue of teaching and more
often students’ understanding of the notion of function (a sample is Breidenbach
et al (1992), Dubinsky & Harel (1992), Horscovics (1982), Oehrtman et al (2008),
Piaget et al (1977), Sfard (1987), Tall, D. & Vinner, S. (1981), Thomson (1994),
Vinner (1989, 1992)) and a survey in Leinhardt et al (1990). The fundamental
starting points in their research is in the field of psychology.
One strand of that research concentrates on students’ perceptions (or subcon-
scious metaphors) of the notion of function, dividing it into the process conception
vs. action conception categories. After Dubinsky & Harel (1992, p.85), “an action
conception of function involves the ability to plug numbers into an algebraic expres-
sion and calculate. It is a static conception in that the subject will tend to think
about it one step at a time (e.g. one evaluation of an expression). A student whose
function conception is limited to actions might be able to form the composition of
two functions, defined by algebraic expressions, by replacing each occurrence of the
variable in one expression by the other expression and then simplifying; however,
the students would probably be unable to compose two functions that are defined
by tables or graphs.” In contrast, “a process conception of function involves a dy-
namic transformation of quantities according to some repeatable means that, given
the same original quantity, will always produce the same transformed quantity. The
subject is able to think about the transformation as a complete activity beginning
with objects of some kind, doing something to these objects, and obtaining new
objects as a result of what was done. When the subject has a process conception,
he or she will be able, for example, to combine it with other processes, or even
reverse it. Notions such as 1 – 1 or onto become more accessible as the student’s
process conception strengthens.”
My own work with students certainly supports importance of perceptions and
metaphors both in learning and teaching, however perhaps more fundamental issues
need to be addressed prior to or simultaneously with the problem of perceptions and
those involve focus on teaching and learning precise “formal” definitions of these
 3

concepts, that in turn, depend on precise, formal definitions of notions of two and
higher dimensions (and representations in coordinate systems). Perhaps a notion
close to this aspect is “concept definition” as discussed in Tall & Vinner (1981), Vin-
ner (1991), Vinner & Dreyfus (1989). However these works concentrate primarily
on “concept image” which is undoubtedly important, however the metaphors (such
as in “concept images”) cannot be made operational and stable, unless there is
definite command of relevant and definite definitions these metaphors should map.
By metaphor, I understand the classical (and somewhat modernized) definition of
metaphor originating with Aristotle in his On the Art of Poetry and Rhetoric “car-
rying of expression from one object onto the other...” In short, metaphor consists
of three parts: the first object, the “carrying” i.e the process of connecting the
two objects, and the second object.” Metaphors are different if at least one of their
three parts differs from the corresponding part of another metaphor.
The present paper gives an example of analysis of students tests in a default
classroom setting. Among other things, I make suggestions as a practical guide in
teaching the subjects involved, but I also point out areas worthy of further education
research. Notable studies exist with related themes and I mention here Selden et
al (1989, 1994, 2000) where the authors test (outside of the classroom setting) self-
selected sample of students (after they complete the usual calculus sequence) on
routine and non-routine problems.

The test, students’ solutions and analysis

Seven concrete test problems are presented here (to be completed in 100 minutes
– the time that is perhaps tight to complete all the problems). By departmental
decision, graphing calculators are allowed, starting from the most elementary re-
medial courses to post calculus courses. My comments accompany each individual
problem with final conclusions at the end of the paper. Students’ solutions are
quoted verbatim, without grammatical corrections.
When making the exams, I try to adhere to some extent (and to the extent
possible in classes at this level) to Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom (1956), and its revi-
sion, Anderson et al (2001)) and devise exam questions of different difficulty to test
various aspects of students’ knowledge. The issue of the difficulty level and all the
ramifications is a complex issue. I expound on this topic in more detail in Dimitric
2012b, while adopting here what is possibly the crudest (but still useful) graduation
in Bloom’s two-dimensional taxonomy array. The first two problems were meant
to be of the simplest kind and students’ scores on the problems show that my gage
of relative difficulty was correct. This however does not mean that students’ per-
formance was appropriately good, as much as I expected or hoped for – the mean
scores on the individual problems, out of maximum 15, were as follows (Problems 1
to 7, in order): 8.04, 6.39, 2.96, 3.52, 0.96, 2.22, 3.39 while the respective medians
were: 8, 7, 1, 3, 0, 1, 3. My rating of problem 5 was not the highest difficulty,
4

for I deemed it not so time consuming, however, students’ performance on this

problem makes it the hardest problem. The reasons for this are manifold, the main
being the fact that the continuity concept (and function in general) is an orphan in
calculus education and another reason is that solving this problem required a bit
of reasoning in steps. While these problems were not out of the ordinary in com-
parison to problems worked out in class or assigned for homework, the problems
may be more difficult than what the students have seen in previous courses and
or courses taken with other instructors. We learn from Selden et al (2000) that
what they term “non-routine” calculus I problems pose considerable difficulty even
for students who completed the calculus sequence (including differential equations).
Perhaps peculiarly, these authors report that, in place of attempting to solve the
problems by calculus techniques, the students use algebra,2 or guessing, etc in their
attempts. As it is, the problems are halting already at Bloom stage one complexity
level3 and this is the area that needs much more attention in research literature.
Since this kind of analysis is also extended to midterm exams (for any given
class), the information I obtain is used to improve teaching in a number of ways.

Problem 1. Given three points in 3D space: A(2, 0, a), B(0, 1, a), C(−1 − 1, 0),
where a is an arbitrary given constant.
a) Calculate the vector/cross product AB~ × AC.
~
b) Calculate the scalar/dot product AB ~ · AC
~
c) For what values of a are vectors AB~ and AC~ (i) perpendicular, (ii) parallel?
d) Write an equation of the plane that contains points A,B,C.

Normally, analytic geometry is not a part of the third calculus; rather, it is often
“reviewed” in previous calculus courses, and at any rate is included in most “coffee
table” calculus textbooks. My department decided to include it in calculus III as
a “review” and rightly so, given the level of mathematical skill of students taking
such courses. There is however a drawback in this kind of remediation since the
topics that are left for the end of the course are sometimes, if not half of the time
(depending on the class), left out for sheer lack of time. But those topics are (or
should be) the core of calculus III – Green’s, Stokes’ and divergence theorems. This
course is fairly standard in the US – it includes topic on vector-valued functions
and surfaces, partial derivatives, optimization and Lagrange multipliers, double and
triple integrals and their properties and techniques of evaluation, vector fields, line
integrals, surface integrals that all culminate in Green’s, Stokes’ and Divergence
theorems.
2 The issue of use of more pre-calculus in calculus was addressed in Dimitric (2001); that
approach however requires a greater sophistication than is exhibited from a typical calculus student
3 Selden et al report that their routine stage is well fulfilled by the students they test, however

their testing was on the material several courses earlier than the course levels the tested students
were at, at the time of testing
 5

This problem was meant to test the elementary 3D concepts at the level of def-
initions and simple steps. I have used a constant a in order to prevent “button
pushing” on programmable calculators. This causes some problems to some stu-
dents who still think that a constant must be given as a concrete decimal number
(most often an integer), not a letter, which (according to many students) is an
unknown variable, by default. This kind of problem could be eliminated if there
were beginning courses that would teach basic mathematical culture, including the
concepts of a constant and variable; in fact such courses should be made mandatory,
at least for mathematics majors.
A number of students stumble upon an objective problem, namely the fact that
we represent vectors both by their end-points (that are each ordered triples) as
well as by a single triple of vector’s coordinates (that are the difference of those
end-points). This is an objective confusion since localization and affinity of 3D
space make this “gluing” possible. The instructor should thus spend some time
in elaborating the concept of vector translation which produces the same vector
(strictly an equivalent vector) that begins at the origin. And judging by further
errors made, the instructor should also make sure that students remember that you
need to subtract the initial point from the end point of the vector to get the vector’s
3D components: AB ~ = (−2, 1, 0) and AC ~ = (−3, −1, −a).
One idea to avoid this confusion is perhaps to use round brackets for ordered
triples representing points and to use angle brackets to represent vectors, however
I did not find that this alone can remedy the problem.
The errors even at this first step are in simple arithmetic (subtracting greater
number from smaller), mishandling of minus signs and parentheses, multiplications
by 0 treated as multiplications by 1, and getting vectors to be the opposite of
what they should be. Arithmetic errors come somewhat from the exam pressure
and to a greater extent because of addiction to calculators that result in students
being unable to do even the simplest arithmetic operations in their heads. I have
mentioned elsewhere [Dimitric 2003, 2009] that students did a bit better when they
were not allowed calculators into the exams.
One student “finds” the vectors by dot multiplying their endpoints, which is in
the domain of confounding (with the dot product). I wanted to check that they
know definitions of the cross (vector) and the dot (scalar) products and how to
compute them if vectors are given in the component form. In the scalar product
all that is required is component-wise multiplication and addition, but the vector
product involves a bit of a twist in that students have to either use the appropriate
determinant or express the vectors through the basis vectors i, j, k and use proper-
ties of cross multiplication. A majority of the students used the determinant and
perhaps it may be due to the fact that I used the determinant more often than other
methods in computing the product when working out exercises at the blackboard.
That should then imply that including more computations with vectors spanned
by the basis may be helpful.
In calculating the cross product determinant (which computes to be −ai − 2aj +
6

5k), the usual arithmetic errors occur, now including calculation of the three by
three determinant. Not all students remember the determinant definition of the
cross product. The student that “found” vectors by multiplying their endpoints
also formed a 2 by 3 “determinant” and did some inventive multiplications inside
to get his incorrect result.
Not all students remember the coordinate definition (computation) of the scalar
product (equal to 5 in this case). Here is how one student does it: (−2, 1, 0) ·
(−3, −1, −a) = (6, −1, 0).
Part c) was meant to check whether students learned the simple connection be-
tween the two products with vectors and orthogonality and parallelism. Some con-
fuse the two and relate parallel to AB~ · AC
~ = 0 and perpendicular to AB ~ × AC~ =0
(many may miss the fact that the latter 0 is a vector). Here the instructor has more
work to do in devoting more time in explaining the distinctions between the two
products, such as that one is a scalar and the other is a vector and spend more time
on the geometric definitions of the two (in addition to their consequent computa-
tional definitions). One may add mnemonic rules to aid the students to remember
which is which and how they are related to these important geometric conditions.
Another student confuses perpendicularity with the condition for perpendicularity
of two lines; he states: “parallel when a = 0. Can’t be perpendicular because a cant
[sic] become a negative reciprocal...” That a should be 0 for parallel or perpendicu-
lar is frequent. One student computes the dot product correctly to be 5 and states
correctly the condition of perpendicularity, but claims that the two vectors are al-
ways perpendicular; this could be simply a lack of concentration on the student’s
part? Another student “solves” this as follows: “AB ~ and AC~ parallel if they point
in same or opposite direction, since AB ~ = h−2, −1, 0i and AC ~ = h−3, −1, −ai, AB ~
~
and AC are not parallel because first component is unequal.” Perhaps one needs to
spend more time on the concept of parallelism by way of one vector being a scalar
multiple of the other, resulting in all corresponding coordinates being proportional.
There were also students who overcomplicated, at least with some of their solu-
tions. Calculus II or III students often take linear algebra concurrently and are only
too eager to demonstrate what they are exposed to in that class, Gauss elimination
being one of the favorites, since considerable attention is paid to it in linear algebra
courses and it is a fairly algorithmic procedure that students always favor. Here is
how one student approaches questions in part c) (decomposition into perpendicular
and parallel components of a vector is also in his mind, for it may have been a part
of a review session before the exam): i) v⊥ + v|| = ||v||, a = −5, ii) a = 2.25. To get
this a, he does Gauss elimination in the matrix made up of rows AB ~ and AC ~ and
gets matrix with rows (1, −1/2, 0) (incorrect) and (0, −5/2, −a) and then matrix
with rows (1, −1/2, 0) and (0, 1, 2a/5) and then rows (1, 0, 9a/10) and (0, 1, 2a/5),
then equates 9a/10 = 2a/5 and gets 45a = 20a from which he derives a = 2.25.
Ending up with an incorrect answer may be prevented, with some chance of success,
by the instructor telling students to check their answers by plugging in the values
they get.
 7

Part d) was meant to give a 2D/3D analogue of the point-slope equation in

the Cartesian plane. The plane is ax + 2ax − 5z + 3a = 0. Although students
may have incorrectly found their cross product, if they wrote the correct form for
the equation of the plane, they received most of the credit for this part. Some
confused the plane equation with that for a line through a point. Thus, this first
step of simply memorizing the plane equation is worth working on. Certainly,
memorization comes with a working out a good quantity of exercises that utilize
the equation or concept to memorize; in addition my advice to students was to
make an index card for a notion they are learning and write definitions and basic
properties on one side and a typical example(s) using the notions on the other side
of the card.

Problem 2. Find a function f (x, y) that satisfies the equation ∇f = (y 2 , x) or

prove that such a function does not exist. (You may assume that the function has
partial derivatives of any order.)

This exercise checks basic properties related to partial derivatives and also whether
students know the conditions, namely that ∂F1 /∂y = ∂F2 /∂x and that the compo-
nents should have continuous partial derivatives. If these conditions are satisfied,
then they should also demonstrate whether they can find such a potential func-
tion f . To simplify considerations on smoothness of partial derivatives, I made the
assumption on the existence of all the partial derivatives which then imply their
continuity. If such an f exists, then, we have to have
∇f = (∂f /∂x, ∂f /∂y) = (y 2 , x), i.e. ∂f /∂x = y 2 and ∂f /∂y = x,
consequently ∂ 2 f /∂y∂x = 2y, ∂ 2 f /∂x∂y = 1. Since we are assured that all partial
derivatives exist and are therefore continuous, a Clairaut’s theorem asserts that
these two mixed second order partials must be equal (which does not happen here,
apart from the points on a single horizontal line 2y = 1).
Students also had a ready-made result that was used in a few exercises in class,
namely that if (F1 , F2 ) = ∇f is a gradient vector field (and f is a potential func-
tion) then one must have ∂F1 /∂y = ∂F2 /∂x, which would again lead to the same
conclusion of no solution.
However, the mathematical results on conditions and existence are not always
welcome or easily adopted by science students; they prefer to “do something” – com-
pute a number, a value of a function or such (which may be classified as an “action
conception of function”, Dubinsky & Harel (1992)). Thus, some students can ignore
conditions and go straight to solving the system: (1) ∂f /∂x = y 2 , ∂f /∂y = x (2).
After integrating the first equation with respect to x one gets f (x, y) = y 2 x + φ(y),
hence ∂f /∂y = 2yx + φ′ (y), which again leads to non-existence of the solution
(2y = 1).
Indeed students’ solutions (or incorrect solutions) show that they mostly at-
tempted to find the solution by solving the system of the two pde, by finding
8

(in)appropriate anti-derivatives. Thus students get that the function should be

xy 2 + C after integrating the first equation with respect to x, likewise, after inte-
grating the second equation with respect to y, that the potential function should
be equal to xy + C, without realizing that these C’s are functions of, respectively,
y and x, rather than an identical constant for both (for some the C is not there
altogether). They still get the correct answer claiming that these two formulas
are not the same. A couple of the students had a different “idea” namely that f
is the sum (or the difference) of the two partial anti-derivatives that they obtain;
f (x, y) = xy 2 ± xy. This error is due most likely to shortness of time students have
to separate and digest different topics they are learning at a fast pace for them.
They have been exposed to various results with sums of partial derivatives, such
as in the multy-variable chain rule, and they likely have that confusion in this re-
gard. On the other hand firm grasp of definition of a function, and its domain and
codomain and integration and differentiation with respect to one variable would
have prevented more blatant errors. Thus keeping in mind that f : R2 −→ R,
i.e. that the domain of f is the (two-dimensional) plane would already be a good
medicine.
A work due for the instructor is to emphasize repeatedly that when integrating
with respect to one variable, the other variables are considered to be constants, but
the “constants” that come out of such integrations are only constant with respect to
the variable of integration, and, that they are in fact functions of the remaining set
of variables. That is not unlike introduction of partial derivatives. Generally the
transition from one dimensional to two dimensional case deserves much attention
and the instructor should not spare time in making sure that students get that very
basic, but important understanding. Even with one variable, the anti-derivative
constant C is usually relegated to either not writing it down or to routine addition
to the anti-derivative that they find, yet one should spend a bit of time on the
constant as well to relate to students that an anti-derivative is in fact a family of
functions that differ by constants and that C may take different values, although
we use that one letter for its label (in case of discontinuities the constant may be
defined piecewise).
Another effort the instructor should make is to advertise conditions for these
results as an essential part not only of the theory they learn, but as an essential
part of their problem-solving skills.
A rare student who appealed to Clairaut’s theorem forgets the crucial condition,
namely the assumption on the continuity of the second partials, in order to make a
conclusion about their equality. That, despite my efforts to preempt this mistake
while teaching them the topic, by pointing out the importance of the continuity
condition; textbooks usually place an example (often in exercises section) that
illustrates that continuity condition is needed.
One can also see that there are a few (luckily only a few) students who seem not
to have learned yet what ∇ means. That can be seen when one student integrates
the first equation with respect to y and the second with respect to x. Another error
 9

one student makes (after finding the anti-derivatives) is that he writes f (x, y) =
(xy 2 , xy) thus confusing the roles of the players in the question. Knowing that the
codomain of f is one-dimensional would have prevented that error and that, yet
again would have been clear if the student wrote all three parts of the function:
f : R2 −→ R.

Problem 3 Express partial derivatives ∂f /∂r, ∂f /∂θ of a function f (x, y, z) in

terms of ∂f /∂x, ∂f /∂y, ∂f /∂z where (r, θ, z) are cylindrical coordinates.

The purpose of this exercise is to test students on the routine of the chain rule
in several variables (three), each of which depends on three variables. Instruction
was geared towards showing that multi-variable chain rule is actually a natural
extension of the one variable case and that, for that matter, the chain rule formulas

∂f ∂f ∂x ∂f ∂y ∂f ∂z
= + + (1)
∂r ∂x ∂r ∂y ∂r ∂z ∂r

∂f ∂f ∂x ∂f ∂y ∂f ∂z
= + + (2)
∂θ ∂x ∂θ ∂y ∂θ ∂z ∂θ
are understandable in view of the one variable chain rule. Just writing down these
formulas earned them 1/3 of the points for this problem. They also had to know
the cylindrical coordinate formulas, from which then they had to find the needed
partial derivatives

∂x ∂y ∂z ∂x ∂y ∂z
= cos θ, = sin θ, = 0, = −r sin θ, = r cos θ, =0
∂r ∂r ∂r ∂θ ∂θ ∂θ

(this would earn the student almost another third of the points). They would be
ready to substitute these partials into (1) and (2) to get the final answer:

∂f ∂f ∂f ∂f ∂f ∂f
= cos θ + sin θ; = (−r sin θ) + r cos θ.
∂r ∂x ∂y ∂θ ∂x ∂y

A number of errors appear here. A few students in fact do not quite know the
cylindrical coordinate formulas yet (Bloom’s step one). Confusions are with the
polar coordinates in two dimensions x = r cos θ, y = r sin θ (omitting the third
equation z = z, or writing z = r); this is also confused with the equation of the
right circular cylinder x2 +y 2 = r 2 or even = z 2 , since the thinking is that z = r. At
least one student confused cylindrical coordinates with spherical ones, undoubtedly
attributed to the fact that, in a relatively short time, both of these coordinate sets
were used in various problems and topics covered in class.
10

Getting incorrect derivative from cylindrical coordinates: ∂x/∂r = sin θ and

∂y/∂r = − cos θ, ∂z/∂r = 1 was also observed.
Some have not learned the chain rule formulas yet, even though they know
the cylindrical coordinates formulas. Thus, students “invent” their own versions
of what they have not yet assimilated; for instance: ∂f /∂x = −r sin θ, ∂f /∂y =
r cos θ, ∂f /∂z = 0. Or ∂f /∂r · ∂r/∂x = ∂f /∂x and ∂f /∂θ · ∂θ/∂y = ∂f /∂y and
∂f /∂z = ∂f /∂z no change. And ∂x/∂θ·∂θ/∂r = ∂x/∂r and ∂y/∂θ·∂θ/∂r = ∂y/∂r.
Here instructor should spend much time in elaborating on function/variable de-
pendencies of the various functions and variables involved, in fact making sure
that students feel comfortable with functions and their compositions. The latter
is especially the case in point since a good number of students are still strug-
gling with ordinary, one-variable compositions of functions (and one variable chain
rule) and compositions of functions of several variables require special attention,
even if they are a very natural extension of the one-variable progenitor. One sim-
ple condition, namely that the composition g ◦ f of two functions exists only if
Range f ⊆ Domain g is entirely missing from calculus textbooks, mainly because
of sole reliance on “intuitive” notions about functions (be it action, process, or
“covariation”). The objective problem is in that finding the range of a function is
difficult, but this is exactly where more work should be invested, in addition to in-
troduction of a notion more relaxed than the range, namely that of codomain. The
lack of understanding of these compositions is visible from the following incorrect
reasoning: “Since we are expressing the partial derivatives respectively in terms
of f (x, y, z) to (r, θ, z) that must mean that ∂f /∂r = ∂f /∂x, ∂f /∂θ = ∂f /∂y,
∂f /∂z = ∂f /∂z respectively and the function f (x, y, z) = f (r, θ, z).”
Certainly it is a “stopper” if they do not know formulas (1) and (2) (Bloom’s
level 1). Again, making a point that these formulas are an extension of the one-
dimensional case would likely ease their remembering the multi-variable chain rule
formulas.
An important subtlety is our notation, namely one writes f (x, y, z) and, after
substituting x, y, z as functions of other variables r, θ, z, we may erroneously use
the same symbol and write f (r, θ, z), an infraction that could be remedied when
a seasoned mathematician is doing mathematics by knowing that it is an abuse
of notation. However students will not pick up on that subtlety and they will
instantly conclude that f (x, y, z) = f (r, θ, z) and thus (x, y, z) = (r, θ, z). At least
one student must have concluded this since he states that ∂f /∂r = ∂f /∂x and
∂f /∂θ = ∂f /∂y and ∂f /∂z = ∂f /∂z, as mentioned above.
There were some students who displayed the chain rule equations, and the cylin-
drical coordinates but were nonetheless unable to complete the appropriate par-
tials from the cylindrical coordinates. But then, there was at least one student
who knew the cylindrical coordinates, knew how to compute the appropriate par-
tials from them, but did not know what to do with it, since he was missing basic
chain rule equations (1) and (2). One student is confounding the chain rule in
this problem with the substitution formula (change of variables), thus he writes
 11
RRR
f (r, θ, z)dzdrdθ.
Here doing chain rule drills with a good number of examples seem to be the only
way to learn the multy-variable chain rule.
One characteristic problem with this exercise must have been, for most students,
the fact that there was no concrete formula for the function f , which made students
attempt to invent it, arguably, because of the action conception of function, but even
with the formula, knowledge of the (dimensions of) domain and codomain would
have had helped greatly). The students were led astray also by the phonetics they
had here. Thus “cylinder” and “cylindrical” induces one student to write a circular
paraboloid equation x2 + y 2 = z (she likely wanted the equation of a cylinder) and
then she writes f (x, y, z) = x2 +y 2 −z, f (r, θ, z) = (r cos θ)2 +(r sin θ)2 −z = 2r 2 −z
and also ∂f /∂x = 2x, ∂x/∂r = cos θ, ∂f /∂y = 2y, ∂y/∂θ = r(cos θ) then ∂f /∂r =
∂f /∂x · ∂x/∂r = 2x cos θ = 2x cos θ, ∂f /∂θ = ∂f /∂y∂y/∂θ = 2yr cos θ = 2yr cos θ,
thus inventing the “chain rule” (notwithstanding algebraic errors). Another student
writes equations of cylinders or spheres (radii = r) as the formula for f (x, y, z)
(which is not given), again confounding cylindrical coordinates with inventing a
formula for f . p Yet another student writes f (x, y, z) = x2 + y 2 + z fx = 2x, fy =
2y, fz = 1 r = x2 + y 2 , θ = tan−1 (y/x), z = z.

Problem 4 Given points A(0,1), B(1,2) and C(3,0) (in 2D) and the curve γ that
consists of the portion of the parabola y = 1 + x2 between points A and B and the
straight line segment connecting B and C, find the line integral
Z
~ · d~s
F
γ

where F~ (x, y) = (x2 − y, y 2 + x) and the curve is traversed in the direction from A
to B to C. What would be the value of the integral if the orientation of the curve
γ were from C to B to A?

This one is meant to test whether students have gotten basics of the line integral
of a vector field. Parts of the solution(s) that were assigned partial credit were:
Drawing the graph of the path and recognizing that the integral overR γ is Rthe sum R
of the two pieces – over the parabolic path and over the line path: γ = γ1 + γ2
(2 points). Then the students should know how to parametrize the two paths,
for instance: γ1 : x(t) = t, y(t) = 1 + t2 , t ∈ [0, 1] and γ2 : x(t) = t, y(t) =
−t+3, t ∈ [1, 3]. One of course needs to know the basic technical integration formula
Rb
~ ~ y(t)) · (x′ (t), y ′ (t))dt and to find correct derivatives
R
γ
F(x, y) · d~
s = a
(F(x(t),
x′ = 1, y ′ = 2t, for γ1 and x′ = 1, y ′ = −1 for γ2 (3 points). Routine polynomial
~ s = 2 and ~ s = 0 (6 points), so
R R
definite integration will then produce γ1 Fd~ γ2
Fd~
R
that γ = 2 + 0 = 2 (2 points). The orientation question tests whether a student
12

knows that RreversingR the path orientation changes the sign of the value of the
integral i.e. γ − = − γ + (2 points).
Apart from the usual arithmetic and algebraic errors, some students are unable
to sketch the (entire) integration path (one student attempts to draw it in 3D,
undoubtedly influenced by a good number of 3D images of surfaces and curves
done on other topics). Ability to draw these simple curves should be a prerequisite
for taking any of the calculus courses (see here Dimitric (2012a)). Again, some
additional time should be spent on functions defining curves and surfaces in different
dimensions; it is highly recommended that functions are presented not only as
formulas, but as ordered triples consisting of domain, codomain, and the formula(a
rule of correspondence). Analysis of the dimensions of the domain and codomain
would then aid the student in recognizing the context as to whether he is dealing
with a surface or a curve and whether it is two, three, or more dimensions. Striving
to make students switch from action to process conception of function would not
help, unless students actually were well familiar with the complete functions, namely
domain, assignment rules and codomain, or luckily the range.
There were a couple of students who only drew the graph of the path and did
nothing else. When it comes to parametrizations the mistakes are in not parametriz-
ing the line or the parabola piece, or not determining correct limits of the parameter
in either of the two pieces. Some students however see no need for parametriza-
tions and use the Cartesian coordinates of the two paths (and some may have the
line segment Cartesian equation incorrectly). This is because those students likely
confound this with the double integral exercises they have been exposed to. Prob-
lems with parametrizations should be diminished by the instructor’s explanation
why parametrizations are needed, as well as working out some simple but also
some intricate parametrizations, while elaborating on the conditions, advantages
or disadvantages of one parametrization over the other.
A number of students then use an incorrect formula to integrate this vector field,
~
namely γ F · d~s = F (c(t)) · ||c′ (t)||dt, which is a formula for the line integral of
R R

a scalar function F . Yet again, dimensional analysis here is of great help to decide
the correct context for solving the problem. A list of “invented” formulas for the
integral is as follows:
R1 2 R1 R1
0
(x − y, y 2 + x)ds = ( 0 x2 − yds, 0 y 2 + xds);
R1
~ ds + 3 F~ ds;
R
F
R02 R 2 1
2
R3R2
0 1
(1 + x − y)dydx + 2 0 (−x + 3)dydx = . . . = 7 + 17 = 24;
R0
1+x2
(x2 − y, y 2 + x), f~(x, y) = (x3 /3 − y 2 /2, y 3 /3 + x2 /2) from C to B to A.
R 1+x2 2
−x+3
(x − y, y 2 + x) and stops here.
R3 2
(t −(1+t2 ), (1+t2 )3 +t)· ∇F ~ (x, y) = (this comes after a correct parametriza-
0
tion of the parabola path, but no parametrization of the line path, and correct
determination of ∇F (x, y)). The incorrect answer obtained was 71187/70
~ ds = b (c(t)2 −c(t), c(t)2 +c(t))·(c′ (t))dt These answers are a good indication
R R
c
F a
 13

that more work needs to be done in the area of vector field integral, certainly more
examples to illustrate differences in integration of a vector field vs. scalar function.
One student has the following incorrect solution: He draws the graph fairly cor-
rectly, and seems to parametrize the portions accordingly, but instead of evaluating
the integral in the two portions, he “adds” the portions of the path as follows:
C1 = y = 1 + t2 + C2 = y = −(t − 3), c(t) = C1 + C2 = 2y = t2 − t + 4, writes
c(t) = (t2 −t+4)/2 and c′ (t) = (2t−1)/2 and then F (c) = (t2 −(t2 −t+4)/2, (−(t2 −
t + 4)/2)2 + t) and F (c) · c′ = (t2 − (t2 − t + 4)/2, (−(t2 − t + 4)/2)2 + t) · (2t − 1)/2
R1
and then (2t − 1)/2 · −1 (t2 − (t2 − t + 4)/2, ((t2 − t + −4)/2)2 + t).
Most students answered correctly the orientation question, but there were a
couple of incorrect answers as follows:
“The value wouldn’t change going the other direction since the line didn’t change
shape or orientation.”
”The value of the integral of the orientation of curve γ went from C to B to A
does not change as if it went from A to B to C.”
Here it would be worthwhile to spend extra time time with the one-dimensional
case and why the sign of the integral changes when the orientation of the interval
of integration is reversed.
There are also some semi-correct answers, as follows:
“If the orientation was from C to B to A the value of the integration would be
negative” (I corrected this to “opposite”).
This comes from the universal error (colloquialism) that students make, namely
identification of “opposite” with “negative” which is not an innocent error, but is
rather a linguistic sloppiness impeding students’ understanding of concepts, and an
effort should be made to correct it.4

Problem 5 The function f (x, y) is defined as follows on the domain [0, 1]×[0, 1]:
x
, if y 6= 0

arctan(1/y 2 )
f (x, y) =
2xπ, if y = 0
Find all the points where the function is continuous (or, complementarily, where
it is not continuous) in its domain.

Here students have to display some sophistication, involving the definition of a

continuous function as well as the knowledge of some trigonometry/algebra, such
as finding when arctan is 0, knowledge of how to do some limits, etc. I have spent
some classroom time explaining that what they mostly (and erroneously) consider
to be continuity (namely that the graph can be drawn without lifting the pencil off
4I have noted elsewhere that this error prevents students from adopting the definition of |x| =
x, if x is positive and −x, if x is negative, for |x| is positive and −x (“negative x”)“is negative.”
14

the paper), is not very useful in functions of several variables. I have emphasized
on numerous occasions that the definition of continuity of f at a point P is that
limx→P f (x) = f (P ). Although this is not such an overly complicated definition
students do not readily accept it, for the simple reason that it is not the instant
product they like – finding limits may be an involved process and may look as a
roundabout way to establishing what they like to think of as the intuitive concept
of continuity.
Certainly it would be nice to check that the function is defined in the proclaimed
domain, by noting that arctan(1/y 2 ) never turns into 0. The first stage of the proof
would be to note that for points that have non-zero y-coordinate, the first part of the
definition of f is the quotient of two continuous functions. Students are expected to
say that x is continuous as a polynomial and that a rational function with non-zero
denominator is continuous as a composition of two continuous functions arctan and
the rational function 1/y 2 . This argument so far would have earned them a good
partial credit. Then they need to check continuity at points of the form (a, 0) i.e.
they need to check that lim(x,y)→(a,0) f (x, y) = f (a, 0) = 2aπ. Students would have
to find the lim(x,y)→(a,0) x/ arctan(1/y 2 ) = a/(π/2) = 2a/π. This means, that in
order to have continuity at such points, the equality 2aπ = 2a/π must be satisfied
and that happens only for a = 0. Hence the conclusion is that f is continuous at
all points (x, y) for which y 6= 0, also at (0, 0) and discontinuous at all other points,
namely all (a, 0), where a 6= 0.
Here is how one student (the weaker of the two high school seniors who took the
class) attempts to solve the problem: She first rewrites the function in “her own”
way: tan−1 (1/y 2 ) and then further “simplifies” the function into x = tan(1/y 2 ) · y,
where the last y stands for the function, namely f (x, y). My experience helps me
to foresee this kind of error, so I warn the students in classes that it is safer to
use arctan, rather than tan−1 lest they mistake it for the reciprocal, rather than
the inverse function. However one has to spend additional time in clearing up this
notational confusion. Almost all widely used calculus textbooks (see e.g. Rogawski
(2008) or Stewart (2012) unwittingly or purposefully use the inverse function nota-
tion, lest they appear not to be sufficiently “modern.” It is as if we should be writing
square−1 to denote the square root function, just so we can show it is inverse of
the basic quadratic function. The same bad habit is seen with calculator keys that
almost exclusively use the inverse function notation. This notation is certainly
useful in general discussions about inverse functions, but is a bad notation when
names for inverse functions exist (for instance the arc functions such as arctan),
which in their names have interpretation, if not the meaning of a particular inverse
function. It has been noted many times before that good notation is golden and in
this case it would result at least in students not confusing the inverse function with
the reciprocal of the function.5 To follow, the same student further draws that part
5 Most
students are genuinely and thoroughly surprised to learn that tan−1 does not denote
the reciprocal of tan. It is an interesting functional equation to find all invertible functions f
whose inverse equals its reciprocal.
 15

of the square root function graph (in the 2D Cartesian coordinate system) that is
in the unit square and claims it is the graph of x/ arctan(1/y 2 ) – all graphs for
her are in two dimensions. Then continues on to say “derivative of ” f ′ (x, y) =
substitution u = tan−1 (1/y 2 )... d2xπ/dx = 2π!! [sic]. Then claims that the func-
tion is not continuous for x = 1 and concludes: “The graph x/ arctan(1/y 2 ) lies
in the positive (x, y) plane and the function is discontinuous at x = 1.” Yet again,
more work must be done simply on functions of more than one variable, in what
their domains and codomains are, as well as their graphs, for, even if students have
better understanding of functions than the action conception, without firm grasp of
domains and codomains or ranges of participating functions would not lead them
to correct solution.
Another student evaluates the function at the four corners of the domain and
concludes that “the function F (x, y) is continuous throughout its domain.” This
comes from students’ confusion with procedures that were used in class when finding
absolute extrema where points on the boundary of the region (or at the corners of
polygonal domains) were crucial. This is confirmed by another student finding the
partials” fx , fy (that seem to be incorrectly done “partial” anti-derivatives), which
he then sets equal to zero and solves the resulting equations. Unquestionably, these
confusions point to insufficient time that students had in digesting the material,
be it objectively (one semester for all the advanced material) and/or subjectively
– insufficient work on the students’ part).
One student correctly computes the function values at the corners, then writes

−x2
(
2 tan−1 (y 2 )−π ,
fx =
2
x π

−2 2 tan−11(y2 )−π ,

fy =
2xπy
He then solves when the parts of these “partials” are equal to 0, conveniently
getting x = 0 as a solution to the first system and not getting anything (“false”)
for the solution of the first part of the second expression; however, from the second
part of the second system he gets xπy = x, y = 0 and says “these points are on
the boundaries.” This is a confusion with the problem of finding the extrema of
functions; the conclusion is that “the function is continuous on the points (1,1) and
(1,0) and not continuous at (0,0) and (0,1).”
One student attempts to find the double integral, over the square, of the first
defining part of the function and, after some incorrect substitutions, etc., arrives at
an incorrect value of the integral. Then he states, as a matter of fact that: “It is
continuous because it is defined everywhere and limits exist.” Double integrals are
frequent among the incorrect solutions here.
Some students know the correct definition of continuity, but cannot find the limit
of the function at a general point, rather they try to find it in a corner point or
16

two, or invent their own limit rules. Thus one states: “2xπ is not dependent on y
and is a continuous function that will be well-defined within the domain” and then
x 1
“ lim 2
= lim f (x, y)′ = .”
y→0 arctan(1/y ) y→0 limy→0 arcsec(1/y 2 )

One student discusses continuity of the parts separately: “For f (x, y) = 2xπ
this is continuous for all points work from the domain x= all real numbers. For
x/ arctan(1/y 2 ) all points work except for 0 from the domain. Because only way
x/ arctan(1/y 2 ) is not continuous is if the denominator is equal to zero. Only value
it will equal zero is if y = 0. So all points on the function f (x, y) is continuous
except when y = 0.” This student did receive partial credit, but here comes again
the problem of functions, in that these piecewise definitions of functions are often
seen as two separate and independent functions, partly because it is more convenient
to do so. Breidenbach, Dubinsky, Havks, Nichols (1992) use “split” functions to test
whether students’ understanding of functions is the process one. This is something
that needs to be addressed in pre-calculus or the beginning algebra courses.
One student states: “... a function is not continuous where it is undefined,” then
goes on to find correctly that the denominator in the fraction part is never 0 and
concludes that there are no points of discontinuity. This statement is an innocent
regurgitation of classroom and textbook folklore where continuity of a function at
a point is still considered even though there is no function (i.e. the function is not
defined there) – the point addressed in Dimitric (2004); see furthermore, Rogawski
(2008) and Stewart (2012) where the instructing examples and the exercises on
“continuity” are almost exclusively such that a student finds zeros of the denomi-
nators of rational functions and pronounces that the “functions” are not continuous
(since they are not defined) at those points. This is propagated as well into online
homework systems such as Webassign, etc.

Problem 6 Find the volume of the region bounded by the hyperbolic cylinders
xy = 1, xy = 9, xz = 4, xz = 36, yz = 25, yz = 49. Do only the part in the first
octant (x, y, z ≥ 0). [Hint: Make an appropriate change of variables and use the
change of variables theorem to compute it. ]

Setting up the problem and the change of variable theorem details are important
and then the integral computation (with the Jacobian)... I have directed students to
use change of variables to check whether they have learned this very process. Equal
points were allotted for substitution, for theorem conditions and for computation
of the integral/Jacobian.
Since each of the x, y, z combinations repeat twice in a circular fashion, the
substitutions seem to be imposing themselves: u = xy, v = xz, w = yz with bound-
aries for u|91 , v|36 49
4 , w|25 (*). Multiplying all the substitution equalities leads to
 17

√
a helpful relationship: xyz = uvw (**). The map ψ(x, y, z) = (xy, xz, yz) =
(u(x, y, z), v(x, y, z), w(x, y, z)) transforms a “curvy, hyperbolic” x, y, z brick V into
a perpendicular u, v, w brick V0 [1, 9] × [4, 36] × [25, 49]. For ψ to be a good
substitution map, we need to check that it is one-to-one. That follows from
the fact that equalities x1 y1 = x2 y2 , x1 z1 = x2 z2 , y1 z1 = y2 z2 imply equalities
x1 = x2 , y1 = y2 , z1 = z2 . Thus existence of the inverse function ψ −1 = φ(u, v, w) =
= (x(u, v, w), y(u, v, w), z(u, v, w)) ispguaranteed.
p In p
fact, solving the substitution
equalities (*) gives φ(u, v, w) = ( uv/w, uw/v, vw/u), which is also one-
to-one.
√ The Jacobian is then computed to be ∂(u, v, w)/∂(x, y, z) = −2xyz =
−2 uvw ((**) was used). Both ψ, φ are C 1 maps, since all the partials exist and
they are continuous. Thus conditions for the change of variable formula are satisfied
and we find the volume as follows:

√
ZZZ ZZZ
dxdydz = | − 2 uvw|−1 dudvdw
V V0

9 36 49
1
Z Z Z
−1/2 −1/2
= u du v dv w−1/2 dw = 64.
2 1 4 25

There are a number of tripping points here, from routine to more subtle ones. Not
knowing/remembering how to compute the Jacobian (a fairly intuitive formula) was
a rare miss among the routine ones. The change of variables formula (a substitution
formula) is computed by
ZZZ
f (x, y, z)dxdydz =
V

ZZ
f (x(u, v, w), y(u, v, w), z(u, v, w))|Jac(φ)|dudvdw
V0

where φ : V0 −→ V is a C 1 and one-to-one map on the interior of V0 and f is

a continuous integrand; here the Jacobian Jac(φ) = ∂(x, y, z)/∂(u, v, w) (see e.g.[
Rogawski, 2008]). This is somewhat a convoluted formula, for it seems to work
“backwards” in that we do not know φ, rather we know an easier φ−1 = ψ that
is usually suggested by the given shapes of regions of integration. The instructor
should spend time to justify the conditions and show that the formula does not
work if conditions are not satisfied. He must further spend time in explaining the
built in deformation of volume and thus justify the use of the Jacobian multiplier.
The shortcuts students make are often utilitarian in nature and one of them is in
not bothering with the Jacobian. Thus one student says: “If Jacobian was not
RRR R 9 R 36 R 49 R 9 R 36 R 49
needed then dV = 1 4 25 dV = 1 4 25 dzdydx, and so on and gets the
volume 6144.” Another student proceeds to do the same “formula” without even
mentioning the Jacobian.
18

A technicality should also be explained, namely that the Jacobians of inverse

functions are reciprocal to each other; some students had missed this fact. Em-
phasis on this however should be made already in the first calculus courses where
derivatives of inverse functions are discussed.
One of the students who missed including the Jacobian in the formula (but
had the correct substitution) went further in simply calculating the volume of the
straight box V0 by multiplying its dimensions (which she found correctly from the
substitution).
Another student seems to know the general procedure and he correctly chooses
the substitution u = xy, v = xz, w = yz, but when he tries to solve for x, y, z he is
not successful. He puts a big “?” and writes “no idea. If I knew the variables, I can
figure it out, but I can’t come up with the variables.” Thus solving these algebraic
systems is important and it is almost never done in lower division algebra classes,
or is mentioned only as an afterthought.
R 49 R 36 R 9
One student starts with 25 4 1 rdrdθdz and proceeds with r 2 |91 etc to get
something like 30720 at the end. Here, there is confounding with specialized pro-
cedures and a number of exercises done on the topic of special substitutions, such
as cylindrical and spherical coordinates (with their own Jacobians); subtleties are
missing though. This again means more exercise time should be devoted both in
class and by the students so as to definitely discern the confusing notions and make
them clearer in students’ minds.
One problem (not widespread) was not quite knowing the integral formula for
the volume and it is tempting for some students to put xyz or uvw as the integrand
in computing the volume (“length times width times height”).
There was one “silent solution” (namely, no explanation, just a formula or two)
by a student who writes:
Z 3Z 7Z 6
zdzdydx
1 5 2
and goes on to integrate this convenient integral with separated variables to get 64
as the solution. One can attribute this solution to a sharp talent to see through
promptly, but, unfortunately this was not the case here. It is not an infrequent
luck at numerology that almost with no exception accompanies problems that have
suspiciously nice, round numbers (that, in this case also seem to be squares too).
One can try to justify this solution by a substitution u2 = xy, w2 = xz, v 2 =
yz; however√ since the one-to-one requirement is needed, the substitution is u =
√ √
xy, w = xz, v = yz, to get the correct limits for u, v, w. When the Jacobian
is found: ∂(u, v, w)/∂(x, y, z) = 1/4 and its reciprocal is 4, which will then give the
correct result after evaluating
Z 3Z 7Z 6
Jac dwdvdu
1 5 2

None of this is to be found in the student’s solution who had a lucky confounding
event with a formula for finding volume under a surface z (which would be a double
 19

integral). Two more students start taking square roots of the given numbers, for
the temptation is too great not to do that when perfect squares of integers are
given.
It would help greatly teaching (and learning)the integration method of substi-
tution in several variables, if this method were thoroughly taught in the case of
one variable (usually in calculus I). The practice of applying the method of sub-
stitution in one variable almost exclusively omits checking that the substitutions
are of the right kind (namely that they are C 1 and one-to-one, etc.). Also, when
doing substitutions, students retain the old limits since they want to go back to the
old variable, once they eventually solve the indefinite integral via the substituting
variable. Thus an opportunity is missed to introduce (implicitly) the “Jacobian”
and all the other features that would become rather useful when the case of several
variables is taken up. I cannot overemphasize this point.

Problem 7. Find the volume of the smaller region bounded by the sphere
x + y 2 + z 2 = a2 (a is a given constant) and the plane z = b, where constant b is
2

such that a > b > 0, using either cylindrical or spherical coordinates.

This exercise could be worked out using elementary calculations, as long as

the student knows formulas for volumes of balls, cones, etc. The essence of the
computation is the method of cross sections, which is often taught in Calculus I
courses. In the context of Calculus III, the problem is meant to check whether
students have the skills to work out the volume via triple integrals, using specific
substitutions, namely cylindrical or spherical coordinates. I specified these two
methods perhaps to aid students in deciding how to start to solve, in view of the fact
that either coordinate substitution would require about the same amount of work to
find the volume. One student thought that one method was more advantageous than
the other, so he was pondering which one to choose before he proceeded. Thus he
thinks aloud: “Region is bounded by a sphere so we will use spherical coordinates.
The Jacobian or multiplier in spherical coordinates is ρ2 sin ρ [sic]” and then he
lists spherical coordinates. But then crosses it all out and continues: “Actually
since we are bounded by z = b, we will use cylindrical coordinates”... and lists
polar coordinates for x, y, but not z and writes that Jacobian = r. Unfortunately
he does not find the limits of integration correctly.
Setting up the volume integral earned one third of the assigned points: For
cylindrical
RRR coordinates
RRR we have x = r cos θ, y = r sin θ, z = z and then V =
V
dxdydz = V0
rdrdθdz and for the spherical coordinates x = ρ cos θ sin φ, y =
ρ2 sin φdρdθdφ. These are substitution
RRR
ρ sin θ sin φ, z = ρ cos φ one has V = V0
formulas with Jacobians already incorporated for these specific substitutions. Text-
books usually discuss them separately and my lecture time is also partly devoted
to the same. If students cannot remember these formulas they have to use the gen-
20

eral substitution procedures and compute the Jacobians, but they certainly have
to know the spherical and cylindrical substitutions.
The next stage is to determine V0 , namely to determine integration limits for
the new variables. For this, well-drawn geometric diagrams are useful, and simple
appeal to the Pythagoras’
√ theorem will give
√ limits for cylindrical coordinates: 0 ≤
θ ≤ 2π, 0 ≤ r ≤ a2 − b2 and b ≤ z ≤ a2 − r 2 . For spherical coordinates, the
limits are as follows: 0 ≤ θ ≤ 2π, 0 ≤ φ ≤ arccos(b/a), and a ≤ ρ ≤ b/ cos φ.
Determining these limits was worth 1/3 of total points and so was the final part of
actually computing the integrals (and thus the volume): In cylindrical form
√ √
Z 2π Z a2 −b2 Z a2 −r2
V = dθ rdr dz =
0 0 b
√
Z a2 −b2 p
= 2π rdr( a2 − r 2 − b) =
0
√ √ !
Z a2 −b2 p Z a2 −b2
= 2π 2 2
r a − r dr − b rdr .
0 0

The first integral in parentheses is done by substitution t = a2 − r 2 to get the

volume V = π(b3 + 2a3 − 3ba2 )/3. Similarly, in spherical coordinates one has:
Z 2π Z arccos(b/a) Z a
dθ dφ ρ2 sin φ dρ =
0 0 b/ cos φ
Z arccos(b/a)
(a3 /3) sin φ − (b3 sin φ)/(3 cos3 φ) dφ


= 2π
0
The second part of the last integral is done by substitution t = cos φ and the volume
again is V = π(a − b)2 (2a + b)/3.
Here the variety of errors occur at every potential trouble spot. The instruc-
tor
RRR should spend more time in elaborating on the simple volume formula V =
V
dxdydz and point out that the integrand is 1, because the volume is already
encoded in the region of integration V whose volume is being calculated. Here
students use all sorts of expressions
p for the integrand in this volume formula, most
2 2 2
frequently x + y + z or a − x2 − y 2 . Other “integrands” are invented by
2

substituting either cylindrical or spherical coordinates

√ into the sphere equation so
that the integrands turn out to be r + z , a − r , ρ2 or ρ2 − a2 . These errors
2 2 2 2

come partly from students confounding procedures they used to find areas under
curves (integrand is the function formula), or volumes under surfaces (integrand is
the surface formula with the double integral as a device). Thus these should be
contrasted with the volume formula when starting work with triple integrals.
With a number of errors along the way, students struggle through, coming up
with some answers that are more often than not polynomials in a, b (including nu-
merical constants). However, these polynomials range from being non-homogeneous,
 21

to being homogeneous of degrees 2, 4, 5 and so on. Teaching students basics of di-

mensional analysis should be done early on in (pre)algebra and introductory science
courses, so that students are comfortable with various dimensions or units for that
matter. It would then go a long way in recognizing problems with their “solutions”
simply based on the incorrect dimension they come up with for, in this case the
volume.
Determining limits of integration is definitely a hurdle and while no problem
is found (with a couple of exceptions) in finding limits 0 ≤ θ ≤ 2π, since most
examples done in the textbook and classroom have those exact limits, determining
limits for other variables is hard for many, not the least because students fail to make
a good geometric drawing, but also because they are not yet good at understanding
that limits of one variable need not be constant, i.e. they may depend on (an)other
variable(s). Thus, in students’ papers, r is found to have limits from 0 to a, √ or b to
a − r, or 0 to a − b and z has limits 0 to a, or 0 to b, or b to a − r or 0 to a2 − r,
b to a2 + b2 , or a − b to a φ varies from a to b, 0 to π, 0 to 2π.
The cursory role of 3D geometry in US school system is well-known. Even the
best of our students competing at math Olympiads need to be given extra prepa-
ration on this aspect of geometry. With that in mind, an instructor has to spend
some time in three dimensional calculus drawing 3D pictures and manipulating
them, through finding relationships, using similarities of triangles, and all. Com-
puter aid in 3D imaging is pretty, but perhaps not very helpful, for students still
would not be able to draw figures and subfigures, find the limits and relationships
among various elements in their 3D figures, unless they made repeated attempts
at drawing them by hand. With slight exaggeration, one should require simple art
classes as a requirement for taking a tad more advanced math class.
One student has a definite idea to solve the problem as a double integral, namely
to play with volumes under the spherical cap and the flat cap z = b, all using
cylindrical coordinates. But she says “x2 + y 2 + z 2 = a2 projection onto x-y plane
= x2 + y 2 = a2 ,” rather than projecting the circle at level z = b.

A brief lesson plan

One of the many uses of our analysis is in making lesson plans. Let us assume
that the lesson’s topic is continuity, one of the most important and most neglected
topics in calculus. We have feedback here attached to Problem 5 and we can
incorporate it into the lesson plan as follows:
Make sure that, by this time, students are well-familiar with the exact notion of
function, as an ordered triple – domain, codomain and the assignment rule(s). This
should be done at early pre-calculus, but in any case it is a must to review/teach at
the beginning of the course. Give students some “trick questions” such as ask them
to decide√which of the following are functions
√ and which are not: f : A −→ B,√a)
f (x) = x, A = R, B = R, b) f (x) = x, A = R+ , B = R, c) f (x) = − x,
22

√ √
A = R+ , B = R+ , d) f (x) = − x, A = R+ , B = R− , e) f (x) = x, A = R+ ,
B = R− . If complex numbers are part of the course, tailor this accordingly.
By this time enough exercises must have been done for students to feel comfort-
able with the notion of a limit and the routine of finding various limits, as well
as basic operations with limits. This should already be done in the first calculus
course. Test them on this with the following limits:

sin x cos x sin x

lim , lim , lim .
x→0 x x→0 x x→∞ x

It is likely that the students will indiscriminately invoke “L’Hospital’s rule;” remind
them what conditions must be satisfied with this rule.
Now, use some limits, in higher dimensions, preferably those you will use to
check whether functions are continuous or not. First some that separate variables:

sin x cos y
lim ,
(x,y)→(0,π/2) xy

And some that are not obviously variable separating lim(x,y)→(a,b) [xy] (the inte-
ger part function). Discussion of cases when ab is and is not an integer may be
instructive.
Do also some piecewise defined function examples, for instance the example used
in Problem no. 5. Or the following one:
 ex −1 sin y

 x y , if x 6= 0 and y 6= 0,

 sin y ,

if x = 0 and y 6= 0,
y
f (x, y) =
e −1
x
 , if x 6= 0 and y = 0,
 x



1, if x = 0 and y = 0.
Define continuity of function f at a point P ∈ A of the domain of the function f :
A −→ B if limx→P f (x) = f (P ). Emphasize that a question whether a “function”
is continuous at a point outside of its domain is meaningless, since there is no
function at such a point. Define what is meant to say that f is discontinuous at a
point. Define (global) continuity of f on all of its domain.
Now do first some simple examples of one variable, then pick up the aforemen-
tioned examples from limit exercises and add new ones. Make sure the examples
are graduated, from simple to more complicated.
If possible, visualize the functions and their limits, either by hand, or using
graphing software.
 23

Conclusions

The problems with understanding functions exist from early mathematics educa-
tion and are dragged along throughout, including higher level or even graduate level
courses. I believe that the foundation for these problems begin before functions are
introduced, at the level of basic notions such as sets and ordered pairs (or triples,
etc). Graphing of functions is introduced simultaneously with the Cartesian plane,
without much ado about abstract formation of the Cartesian product of (two) sets.
Yet, it took many generations in human development before the idea of Cartesian
product matured. Not only should considerable time be devoted to “playing” with
coordinates, but a physical drawings6 of coordinates (and at least simple objects)
in two and three dimensional coordinate systems should be practiced thoroughly
until the students feel this as a “second nature.” Once this ground work is made
for the dimensions higher than one, one can introduce a name for a subset of a
Cartesian product A × B – call a subset ρ ⊆ A × B a relation from A to B, that can
be denoted by ρ : A −→ B.7 Some simple operations and drawings with relations
should be introduced as a practice.
Then, time comes for a definition of a function f : A −→ B as a relation with
properties that, for every a ∈ A there is only one b ∈ B with (a, b) ∈ f or b = f (a).
A should be called the domain of f and B the codomain and the range would
be introduced as the set of all b ∈ B such that (a, b) ∈ f , for all a ∈ A. An
important point should be made, namely that the function consists of these three
parts f : A −→ B and that each of them as important as any other in their own
right and that two functions f : A −→ B and g : C −→ D are equal if and only if
all three components are equal: A = C, B = D, f = g. A good number of exercises
that vary some or all parts of a function and discussion of resulting differences
should be made until students adopt this formalism to a high degree.
Then the stage is set for metaphors. A dynamic metaphor that I use is that of
a processor (a “grinding machine”) as sketched in the following diagram:

[Here a diagram of the processor needs to be inserted...]

One can represent this as making of bread sticks (placed in codomain C) after
dough in domain A is processed by pasta machine f .8 Here, it is very important
to impart to students that a function f : A −→ B is the whole assembly line
consisting of A, f and B, rather than just rely on a vague hope that the students
would see functions either as action or process conception. Importance of domain
may be imparted for instance by replacing domain with dough with domain with
6I like slightly exaggerating and saying that “what does not go through your hand does not
get to your head...”
7 My own experience and feedback from several educational systems show that even very young

students are not intimidated by this abstraction level, which may run contrary to prejudices in
existence regarding mathematics education.
8 One can vary the description dependent on the fashionable language of the day and place –

veggie burgers in California or a sausage machine in Texas...

24

iron bars that cannot be processed by the processor, or codomain that is a capillary
dish that cannot accommodate the processed dough... Varying all the parts of the
function would show a student that each part is in fact equally important as a
constituent of what is meant by a function. Composition may be explained in a
similar manner, for a packing machine g : C −→ D may be the follow up “factory”
that will work, only if the final product of f is in the domain of g; thus g may
be able to process sticks only of certain length range, not of other dimensions, yet
again underlining importance of domain and codomain (or range) – the diagram
has some sticks separated from the other in B, those in domain C of g and those
that are not in C.
There are other metaphors one can use, but a very important point to remem-
ber is that we cannot have correct metaphors if we do not give students correct
definitions of notions we teach them and insist that they adopt these definitions,
at least at the memorization level (first step in Bloom’s taxonomy). Otherwise we
would end up in finding metaphors, of metaphors, thus giving students an impres-
sion that the notions are negotiable moving targets. While mathematical formalism
is not equivalent to what mathematics is, it is nonetheless an essential constituent
of mathematics. It is most crucially visible in at least one practical development,
namely computerization of human knowledge and experience which could not take
place without strict mathematical formalism. Development of ideas is mostly a
meandering process, not infrequently through bouncing off of the extreme views or
practices. Thus an increased formalization of mathematics in the 20th century led
to sometimes indiscriminate transplantation of formalism into teaching practice,
which in turn led to overreaction in other direction, in denial of all the formalism
where the notions of function and its properties was degraded to pre-Eulerian levels
of understanding of what a function is. In a pivotal exposition of the pre-1930’s his-
tory of the development of function notion, Luzin (1935; see also Yushkevich (1966,
1977)) highlights subtleties of the function concept inclusive with the then develop-
ing views on classification of functions, intuitionistic developments, etc. Bourbaki
formalized the function concept in 1939 and then category theory brought about a
great generality and the accompanying simplification of the concept. Adoption of
these developments in school curriculum has been checkered at best and it would
be an interesting topic of research to look into the reasons why function concept is
not adopted and properly taught in schools (and colleges).
If this huge leap of students remembering correct definition of function gets
achieved, other constructs with functions would become much easier, one of them
being definition of continuity.
There are some drawbacks in analyzing or publishing an analysis of this kind.
For instance, it is a fact that analyzing tests in detail is very time consuming, and
even tedious. In addition, there are instances where this powerful educational tool
may be misused: Fearing negative feedback from students or administration alike,
some instructors would attempt to avoid potential trouble spots (as found through
analyses of this kind) by considerably diluting the level of content of the courses
 25

both in the classroom as well as in levels of examinations.

As with every powerful weapon, dangers of its misuse always exist. Still, the
benefits here outweigh the dangers. Based on the work students have shown on
tests one can extract a good amount of useful information that can be utilized as
follows (beyond the obvious and customary assessment value of tests):

1. To find out about students’ specific difficulties in learning specific topics.

In this case we learn about problems students are likely to have with an-
alytic geometry, linguistic and phonetic hurdles in adopting concepts, dif-
ficulties with “higher” dimensions, differentiation and integration hurdles,
(mis)understanding of the concept of function, and continuity, especially
when mapping one higher dimension to another, in graphical visualization
and (in)ability to use it intelligently. In (lack of) algebraic skills and ability
to perform simple mental calculations. In problems in doing integration,
drawing graphs in 2D, dimensional analysis, etc.
2. To learn about points of emphasis and amount of repetition the instructor
should devote to specific topics.
3. To help instructors devise appropriate lesson plans, that would preempt
usual difficulties, misconceptions and obstacles that exist before and during
instruction on any specific topic.
4. To get a specific content for making diagnostic tests for any particular class.
5. To learn about students’ gaps in their knowledge in material they should
have learned by the time they come to the specific subject (prerequisites).
6. To get very concrete snapshots of progression of teaching and learning, in
fairly real time (since midterm exams are part of the analysis).

Topics for further exploration

a) Compare performance of students in mathematics classes dependent on whether

they had previously taken or not a drawing class, with perspective drawing in par-
ticular. A default expectation is that the students who took such a class would
perform considerably better in multi-dimensional calculus or in other courses where
more than one dimension is involved. A worthy cause would also be to quantify
the difference in math abilities of the two groups.
b) Compare performance of students in mathematics classes dependent on whether
they had previously taken or not a mathematics culture class where considerable
time is devoted to issues of coordinate systems (dimensions, ordered tuplets, rela-
tions and so on), variables, constants, sets and operations with them. My belief is
that students who took such a class would be considerably ahead of those who did
not take that kind of class.
c) Develop a calculus complex (consisting of three segments, say) in a way that
earlier segments set up the stage for easier sailing into the subsequent segments,
26

by way of generality of introducing concepts and by thoughtful process of choosing

expandable metaphors.

Acknowledgment: The author would like to thank Professor Annie Selden for
her useful feedback on the content and form of the paper, and Professor Ivko Dim-
itrić for their stylistic comments, as well as anonymous referees for their comments
that led to a better presentation of the content of this paper.

References

Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D.R. & Airasian, P.W. & Cruikshank, K.A. &
Mayer, R.E. & Pintrich, P.R. & Raths, J. & Wittrock, M.C. (Eds.) (2001): A
taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of
educational objectives; Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Bloom, B.S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classifi-
cation of Educational Goals, pp.201–207; Susan Fauer Company, Inc.
Breindenbach, Daniel & Dubinsky, Ed & Hawks, Julie & Nichols, Devilyna
(1992): Development of the process conception of function. Educational studies
in mathematics 23, 247–285.
Dimitric, R.M. (2001): Using less calcus in teaching calculus. A historical ap-
proach. Mathematics Magazine 74, No.3 (June), 201-211.
Dimitric, R.M. (2003): Components of Successful Education, Tenth Interna-
tional Congress of Mathematics Education (ICME10), TSG 27, 2004; The Teaching
of Mathematics, 6(2003), No.2, 69–80
Dimitric, R.M. (2004): Is 1/x continuous at 0?, arXiv: 1210.2939v1;mathGM]
Preprint.
Dimitric, R.M. (2009): Student placement in calculus courses. A case study.
Eleventh International Congress of Mathematics Education (ICME11), TSG , 2009;
The Teaching of Mathematics, 12(2009), No. 2, 83-102.
Dimitric, R.M. (2012a): How to make a course specific diagnostic test in the
context of Bloom’s taxonomy, In preparation.
Dimitric, R.M. (2012b): On complexity distance and its applications in educa-
tion, In preparation.
Dubinski, E. & Schoenfeld, A.H. & Kaput, J.J. (Eds) (1994): Research in Col-
legiate Mathematic Education, I. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
Dubinski, E. & Harel, G. (1992): The nature of the process conception of func-
tion. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.). The concept of function: Aspects of
epistemology and pedagogy. MAA Notes 25, 85–106.
Horscovics, N. (1982): Problems related to the understanding of functions, in
Proceedings of the Workshop on Functions, Organized by the Foundation for Cur-
riculum Development, Enschede.
 27

Leinhardt, G. & Zaslavsky, O. & Stein, M. (1990): Functions, graphs and graph-
ing: Tasks, learning and teaching, Review of Educational Research 60(1), 1-64.
Luzin, N.N. (1935): Function, The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia 1959, 314-334
Translated by Abe Shenitzer: Function: Part I Amer. Math Monthly 105, No. 1
(Jan. 1998), 59–67 and No. 3 (Mar. 1998), 263–270).
Oehrtman, Michael & Carlson, Marylin & Thomson, Patrick W. (2008): Foun-
dational reasoning abilities that promote coherence in students’ function under-
standing, In: Making the Connection: Research and Teaching in Undergraduate
Mathematics, SIGMA and RUME, MAA Notes, Vol. 75, 27–41.
Piaget, J. & Grize, J.-B. & Szeminska, A. & Bang, V. (1977): Epistemology and
Psychology of Functions (J. castellanos and V. Anderson, trans.), Reidel, Dordrecht.
Rogawski, J. (2008): Calculus. Early Transcendentals, 3rd printing. New York:
W.H. Freeman and Company.
Selden, J. & Mason, A. & Selden, A. (1989): Can average calculus students solve
nonroutine problems? Journal of Mathematical Behavior 8, 45–50.
Selden, J. & Selden, A. & Mason, A. (1994): Even good calculus students
can’t solve nonroutine problems. IN: Research issues in undergraduate mathemat-
ics learning (Vol. 33, pp.19-26). Washington, D.C.: Mathematical Association of
America.
Selden, Annie & Selden, John & Hauk, Shandy & Mason, Alice(2010): Why
Can’t Calculus Students Access their Knowledge to Solve Nonroutine Problems?
CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education, 8, 128–153.
Stewart, J. (2012): Single Variable Calculus. Early Transcendentals. 7th ed.
Australia: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning.
Sfard, A. (1987): Two conceptions of mathematical notions: Operational and
structural, in J.C. Bergeron, N. Herscovics and C. Kieran (eds.), Proceedings of the
Eleventh International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education,
III, Université, Montreal, pp 162-169.
Tall, D. & Vinner, S. (1981): Concept images and concept definitions in math-
ematics with particular reference to limits and continuity, Educational Studies in
Mathematics 12, 151–169.
Thomson, Patrick W. (1994): Students, functions, and the undergradute cur-
riculum. In Dubinsky et al (Issues in Mathematics Education Vol 4, pp 21-24).
Vinner, S. (1989): Images and definition for the concept of function, Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education 20, 356–366.
Vinner, S. (1992): The function concept as a prototype for problems in mathe-
matics learning, in Dubinsky & Harel (1992), 195–214.
Vinner, S. & Dreyfus, T. (1989): Images and definitions for the concept of
function, Journal of Research in Mathematics Education 20. 356–366.
Yushkevich, A.P. (1966): The concept of function up to the middle of the nine-
teenth century, Istor.-Mat. Issled. , 17, 123–150.
Yushkevich, A.P. (1977): The concept of function up to the middle of the nine-
teenth century, Arch. History of Exact Sci. , 16 37–85.
28

APPENDIX: CALC III DIAGNOSTIC TEST

What was the last math course you took, when and where?
Career goal (what is the reason you are taking this course):
Please do the following problems in one hour, without using a calculator. These
problems are a quick sample of calculus and algebra you will need for Calculus III.
I want to see how fresh you are with the material and advise you accordingly.

1) Sketch the curves y = −2x − 1 and y = x2 − 1 and find algebraically the

points of intersection of the two lines.
2) Define when a function f (x) is continuous at a given point a.
3) Solve the system of equations:

x + y = 1, x3 + y 3 = 2.

4) Find the limit

sin 3x
lim =
x→0 5x

5) What is the set of all numbers x such that e−x > 3?

6) Draw the graphs of the functions e−x and ln(−x).
7) What are all the x such that sin x > cos x?
8) What does the equation (x + 1)2 + (y − 1)2 = 1 represent geometrically?
9) What is the volume of a right circular cone with radius of base r and height
h?
10) Find

2x2 + 3x7 + 1000

lim =
x→∞ 2x7 + 3x2 + 1001

11) Write the equation of the tangent line to the graph of the function
x
f (x) = ,
1 + x2

passing through the point (1,1/2).

12) Find the first derivative of the function f (x) = (−2x + 1)100
13) Calculate sin2 √
70◦ + cos2 70◦ =
14) True or false: a2 + b2 = a + b?
15) True or false:
a a a
= + ?
b+c b c
 29

16) Calculate the integral:

Z
xex dx =

2
17) If f (x) = ae2x , what is f (2a) ? (a is a given constant).
18) Calculate the integral
1
x
Z
dx =
0 1 + x2
R∞ 2
19) Calculate 1
xe−x dx =
20) Calculate
Z π/4
tan x dx =
0